FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HORSEWEAR PRODUCTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRL) LIMITED)) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures horse rugs and accessories and employs 80 workers in Dundalk and 18 in Kingscourt. In September, 1995 a number of process workers at the Dundalk plant joined the Union. Subsequently the Union wrote to the Company to discuss recognition and negotiating rights on behalf of its members. The Company responded stating that the majority of staff were happy with the Works Committee in the plant which adequately represented workers' interests, and that it would not afford Union recognition. The Union sought to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission but the Company was unwilling to attend a conciliation conference. On the 6th March, 1996 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 10th July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Works Committee is, in reality non-functional in terms of providing representation for workers grievances. It has no role in problem solving on a day-to- day basis.
2. It is in the interest of good industrial relations that the Company afford the Union recognition and negotiating rights for its members.
3. It is a worker's fundamental right under the Constitution to be represented by a union.
4. Many employments in the area benefit from partnerships with unions to the betterment of relations between workers and management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Works Committee deals with all aspects of worker grievances including terms and conditions of employment. The Company discussed the matter of union recognition with the Works Committee who indicated that they did not wish to change current arrangements.
2. The Company recognises workers' rights to join a union. It has not hindered this right.
3. Management believes that the majority of workers favour the Works Committee. They are happy with its operation and see no need to change purely because some workers do not agree with it.
4. Should a majority of staff wish to change to union membership the Company is willing to consider making the necessary changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's right to represent the employees it has in membership.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th July, 1996______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.